Interpretación de indicadores sociales

The relentlessly turbulent, competitive and knowledge intensive society is an environment where agile, inter-dependent networked organisational forms have gained much more prevalence than the mechanistic bureaucratic forms that were built over a period of 300 years in the industrial age. Communities of Practice (CoP), Knowledge Networks, Collaborative Organisations and Virtual Organisations are some of the terms used to describe forms of organisation that are prevalent today.

26

The community is a basic, foundational structure of our existence. The term “Community” invokes images of connection, kinship, unity, cooperation, convergence and identity. A Community, by its very nature, involves people being together, cooperating according to agreeable standards. The underlying tenet for community formation is the need for survival. Heilbroner points out that on a decent diet, human beings can produce just about one horsepower-hour of work daily and that with that, their bodies need to be replenished49_.

Individually, he says, we are economically helpless. In modern society, we are extremely inter-dependent on others. As society evolves and becomes increasingly complex, individuals or small communities surviving unaided is becoming more and more unimaginable. The term “community of practice” (CoP), was ostensibly coined by anthropologists Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger in the early 1990's. Wenger defines communities of practice as “groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an on-going basis”50_{. This is a}

broad definition and Wenger sites a few examples to illuminate the concept.

“Communities of practice were our first knowledge-based structures, back when we lived in caves and gathered around the fire to discuss strategies for cornering prey, the shape of arrows or which roots were edible. Engineers who design a certain kind of electronic circuit find it useful to compare designs regularly and to discuss issues of their esoteric speciality. Soccer moms and dads take advantage of game times to share tips and insights about the subtle art of parenting. Artists congregate in cafés and studios to debate the merits of a new style or technique. Gang members learn to survive on the street and deal with an unfriendly world. Frontline managers running manufacturing operations get a chance to commiserate, to learn about upcoming technologies, and to foresee shifts in the winds of power.”

CollaborativeOrganisational networks, much like CoP, form when firms work jointly beyond their mere transactional relationships towards a common goal. Different organisations can have a strategy together and this is referred to by De Wit and Meyer as a network level strategy51_{. They point out that organisations must necessarily form relationships with other}

organisations. Whilst relationships can evolve without strategic intent or tactical calculation, the building of external relations (even the avoiding of some) is a significant strategic factor that organisations must address. De Wit and Meyer identify eight major groups of external

49 _{HEILBRONER, MILBERG: The Making of Economic Society. Twelfth Edition. 2008 Pages 1-10.} 50 _{WENGER et al.: Cultivating Communities of Practice. 2002}

27

relational actors with whom the firm can, or must, interact. These relations are depicted in the following diagram:

Figure 2: The firm and its web of relational actors – (De Wit, Meyer Strategy Synthesis (Page 155)

Rick Kash and David Calhoun call this new model of collaborative organisation the “demand chain”. They indicate that this model is a counterpoint to the traditional supply chain, with its information flowing in the opposite direction with results driving capabilities rather than the other way round.52

De Wit and Meyer also point out that collaborative alliance is not only about working together towards a common interest, but that one must be assertive about one’s own interests. Alliances are both cooperative and competitive by nature53_{. Competitive relations can be}

openly antagonistic on the one hand, but can also be more subtle where organisations’ objectives are less at odds. Cooperative behaviour will be exhibited by organisations where they need each other to succeed. In some instances, alliances could be occasional and in other instances, tightly-knit long-term virtual integration could develop. De Wit and Meyer point

52 _{KASH AND CALHOUN, How Companies Win. 2010. Page 196.} 53 _{DE WIT AND MEYER. Strategy Synthesis. 2005. Page 163}

28

out that the creating of conditions leading to long-term, shared commitment between firms overcomes the short-term temptation by some to cheat their partners. To be willing to commit to high levels of inter-dependence, they say that parties need to trust the intentions and actions of their partners. In Nowak’s terms, the collective mechanisms of cooperation yielding a favourable cost-to-benefit ratio must be strong enough to provide reasonable assurance that defection is an unlikely strategy. De Wit and Meyer indicate that highly cooperative behaviour is likely to obtain in situations where firms face a joint challenge that can only be resolved through mutual commitment. More restrained behaviour, on the other hand is more likely when the levels of dependency are low and parties seek to optimise their own return to the detriment of others. In cases where a high level of commitment is required, coordination and conflict-resolution mechanisms will need to be put in place to solve evolving problems that may emanate from the relationships as a consequence of the conflict between cooperation and competition. 54